[differs from full draft. Note that full draft retains a "rule of three" - Glennan 12/1/08]

6.16.0.3.2

6.16.0.3.2

Line 27:

Line 32:

No mention of ensembles here. Can they be incorporated into this hierarchy? If not, include reference out to later instruction (6.16.0.9) - Glennan 11/10/08

No mention of ensembles here. Can they be incorporated into this hierarchy? If not, include reference out to later instruction (6.16.0.9) - Glennan 11/10/08

+

+

6.16.0.3.3

+

+

I think these are poor examples. Based on the above instructions, wouldn't "piano" also be recorded? Should a reference be made from here (or near here) to the exceptional treatment for songs, Lieder, etc. at 6.16.0.12? - Glennan 11/10/08

==6.16.0.4 Instrumental music intended for one performer to a part==

==6.16.0.4 Instrumental music intended for one performer to a part==

+

[same as full draft, 6.16.1.4]

==6.16.0.5 Standard combinations of instruments==

==6.16.0.5 Standard combinations of instruments==

+

[mostly the same as full draft 6.16.1.5. The full draft bottom paragraph on p. 78 retains a rule of three, so LC's version is preferred. - Glennan 12/1/08]

+

+

6.16.0.5.1

+

+

ALA has regularly recommended adding the following clause to the end of this instruction: "when the preferred title includes trio, quartet or quintet (or the plural)" I'm a bit alarmed that we have to keep making this recommendation, since it's really a very important concept to retain. - Glennan 11/10/08

+

+

6.16.0.5.2

+

+

Obvious to the experienced, but not clear in the instruction: does "record the name of the standard combination as given in the left column above" include the parenthetical? Since I'm assuming "no", how should this be rephrased? - Glennan 11/10/08

==6.16.0.6 Individual instruments==

==6.16.0.6 Individual instruments==

+

[1st paragraph has minor change from full draft as noted by strikethrough. I find the full draft's use of footnotes in this section odd. - Glennan 12/1/08]

+

+

Agreed, the transfer of the parentheticals that are extant under 6.16.0.6.1 and 6.16.0.7.1 to footnotes under the corresponding RDA rules (6.16.1.6, 6.16.1.7) seems pointless and unwise. Where the editor's insertion of parentheticals was distracting, these are legitimate clarifications properly carried over from the existing AACR2 rules. MYERS 12/21/2008

+

+

[Keyboard instrument examples not the same as full draft]

+

+

+

6.16.0.6.1

+

"... whenever possible"? I recommend changing this 1st sentence to "When recording an individual instrument, use a term preferred by the agency creating the data." -Glennan 11/10/08

+

+

6.16.0.6.2

+

+

Use a real example. The P.D.Q. Bach work is for viola 4 hands, not viola 3 hands. [LCCN 73298310] - Glennan 11/10/08

+

+

Because I provided real examples to the "May Group", I have the LCCNs for the real examples. How can we convey these to the Examples Working Group?

Note omission of the AACR2 instruction to omit "alto" "tenor" & "bass". ALA recommended retaining this the last time we discussed Chapter 6, but the rest of the "May Group" did not agree. Should we put this forward again? If these terms are recorded in an access point (OK, I know that comes up later in Chapter 6, but I think those terms are built from these instructions), this will reflect a change in practice from AACR2. - Glennan 11/10/08

+

+

6.16.0.6.5

+

I can't find this equivalent in full draft. The closest parallel seems to be the 2nd paragraph on p. 81 (final paragraph of 6.16.1.8) - Glennan 12/1/08

+

+

6.16.0.6.6

+

+

In ALA's previous Chapter 6 comments, we suggested adding the following to the end of this instruction: "..., or its cognate in the language preferred by the agency creating the data." Is this worth proposing again in the interest of internationalization, or should we just skip it? The instruction would certainly work as it stands for American libraries. - Glennan 11/5/08

==6.16.0.7 Groups of instruments==

==6.16.0.7 Groups of instruments==

+

[Different from full draft]

+

+

6.16.0.7.3 "Large ensembles" is not the correct terminology to refer to the following instruction. Change to "orchestra, string orchestra, or band" - Glennan 11/10/08

==6.16.0.8 Instrumental music for large ensembles==

==6.16.0.8 Instrumental music for large ensembles==

+

[Parallels full draft 6.16.1.8; prefer full draft in this case. - Glennan 12/1/08]

+

+

Note: Title of instruction varies from table of contents (6.16.0) "Instrumental music for orchestra, string orchestra, or band" The table of contents is correct. Change this title. - Glennan 11/10/08

+

+

6.16.0.8.1

+

+

For consistency, change "large ensembles" to "orchestra, string orchestra, or band" in this instruction. (In other words, use the version in the full draft.) - Glennan 12/1/08

+

+

6.16.0.8.3

+

+

I'm not sure the exception here is in the right place. 6.18.0.3 is not addressing particular instrumental or vocal ensembles. Perhaps part of this (instrumental ensembles) belongs in 6.16.0.7, while the vocal ensemble piece belongs in 6.16.0.11? - Glennan 11/10/08

==6.16.0.9 One or more solo instruments and accompanying ensemble==

==6.16.0.9 One or more solo instruments and accompanying ensemble==

+

[Same as full draft 6.16.1.9]

+

+

Decide on terminology: "the name of the accompanying ensemble" (6.16.0.9.1) or "the term for the accompanying ensemble" (6.16.0.9.2) - Glennan 11/10/08

+

+

6.16.0.9.1

+

+

Order shouldn't matter until the creation of access points. However, the instructions in 6.28 about building access points refer back here. So, where does an instruction about order really belong? - Glennan 11/14/08

+

+

6.16.0.9.2

+

+

Two instructions in previous version now collapsed into one. That's why the "clarinets (2)" example appears here with no obvious justification. Should these be broken out for clarity? If not, move this particular example under 6.16.0.9.3, with no other change needed. - Glennan 11/10/08

==6.16.0.10 Solo voices==

==6.16.0.10 Solo voices==

+

[Same as 6.16.1.10 in full draft]

+

+

6.16.0.10.1 Reads like a closed list, but these don't exist in RDA anymore. What impact will an open list have on consistency in access point construction? (Again, I know those instructions come later in this chapter, but I believe they draw on these instructions for terminology.) - Glennan 11/10/08

Recommend changing "such works" in 1st sentence of instruction to make things clearer. Revised sentence should read: "If, however, two or more works of indeterminate medium of performance by the same composer have the same title, record the number of parts or voices." - Glennan 11/10/08

+

+

6.16.0.13.3

+

+

[a) and b) in full draft as part of 6.16.1.13]

==6.16.0.14 More than one particular instrument, ensemble, or voice==

==6.16.0.14 More than one particular instrument, ensemble, or voice==

+

[similar to full draft 6.16.1.3]

+

+

6.16.0.14.1

+

+

Consider changing "...more than one part for a particular instrument..." to "...more than one particular instrument..." Use of "part" here may suggest the score format to some users of the code. - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.1 Scope

6.16
Requirement statement ignores possibility of needing this core element to differentiate compilations. Is that a problem? - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.2 Sources of information

[same as full draft]

6.16.0.3 Recording medium of performance

[differs from full draft. Note that full draft retains a "rule of three" - Glennan 12/1/08]

6.16.0.3.2

No order provided within categories. This guidance is needed. (Score order? Alphabetical??) My personal preference would be for score order -- but that's been quite a sticking point in the past (due to the problems of defining this term), so I could live with alphabetical. - Glennan 11/10/08

No mention of ensembles here. Can they be incorporated into this hierarchy? If not, include reference out to later instruction (6.16.0.9) - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.3.3

I think these are poor examples. Based on the above instructions, wouldn't "piano" also be recorded? Should a reference be made from here (or near here) to the exceptional treatment for songs, Lieder, etc. at 6.16.0.12? - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.4 Instrumental music intended for one performer to a part

[same as full draft, 6.16.1.4]

6.16.0.5 Standard combinations of instruments

[mostly the same as full draft 6.16.1.5. The full draft bottom paragraph on p. 78 retains a rule of three, so LC's version is preferred. - Glennan 12/1/08]

6.16.0.5.1

ALA has regularly recommended adding the following clause to the end of this instruction: "when the preferred title includes trio, quartet or quintet (or the plural)" I'm a bit alarmed that we have to keep making this recommendation, since it's really a very important concept to retain. - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.5.2

Obvious to the experienced, but not clear in the instruction: does "record the name of the standard combination as given in the left column above" include the parenthetical? Since I'm assuming "no", how should this be rephrased? - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.6 Individual instruments

[1st paragraph has minor change from full draft as noted by strikethrough. I find the full draft's use of footnotes in this section odd. - Glennan 12/1/08]

Agreed, the transfer of the parentheticals that are extant under 6.16.0.6.1 and 6.16.0.7.1 to footnotes under the corresponding RDA rules (6.16.1.6, 6.16.1.7) seems pointless and unwise. Where the editor's insertion of parentheticals was distracting, these are legitimate clarifications properly carried over from the existing AACR2 rules. MYERS 12/21/2008

[Keyboard instrument examples not the same as full draft]

6.16.0.6.1
"... whenever possible"? I recommend changing this 1st sentence to "When recording an individual instrument, use a term preferred by the agency creating the data." -Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.6.2

Use a real example. The P.D.Q. Bach work is for viola 4 hands, not viola 3 hands. [LCCN 73298310] - Glennan 11/10/08

Because I provided real examples to the "May Group", I have the LCCNs for the real examples. How can we convey these to the Examples Working Group?

Note omission of the AACR2 instruction to omit "alto" "tenor" & "bass". ALA recommended retaining this the last time we discussed Chapter 6, but the rest of the "May Group" did not agree. Should we put this forward again? If these terms are recorded in an access point (OK, I know that comes up later in Chapter 6, but I think those terms are built from these instructions), this will reflect a change in practice from AACR2. - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.6.5
I can't find this equivalent in full draft. The closest parallel seems to be the 2nd paragraph on p. 81 (final paragraph of 6.16.1.8) - Glennan 12/1/08

6.16.0.6.6

In ALA's previous Chapter 6 comments, we suggested adding the following to the end of this instruction: "..., or its cognate in the language preferred by the agency creating the data." Is this worth proposing again in the interest of internationalization, or should we just skip it? The instruction would certainly work as it stands for American libraries. - Glennan 11/5/08

6.16.0.7 Groups of instruments

[Different from full draft]

6.16.0.7.3 "Large ensembles" is not the correct terminology to refer to the following instruction. Change to "orchestra, string orchestra, or band" - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.8 Instrumental music for large ensembles

[Parallels full draft 6.16.1.8; prefer full draft in this case. - Glennan 12/1/08]

Note: Title of instruction varies from table of contents (6.16.0) "Instrumental music for orchestra, string orchestra, or band" The table of contents is correct. Change this title. - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.8.1

For consistency, change "large ensembles" to "orchestra, string orchestra, or band" in this instruction. (In other words, use the version in the full draft.) - Glennan 12/1/08

6.16.0.8.3

I'm not sure the exception here is in the right place. 6.18.0.3 is not addressing particular instrumental or vocal ensembles. Perhaps part of this (instrumental ensembles) belongs in 6.16.0.7, while the vocal ensemble piece belongs in 6.16.0.11? - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.9 One or more solo instruments and accompanying ensemble

[Same as full draft 6.16.1.9]

Decide on terminology: "the name of the accompanying ensemble" (6.16.0.9.1) or "the term for the accompanying ensemble" (6.16.0.9.2) - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.9.1

Order shouldn't matter until the creation of access points. However, the instructions in 6.28 about building access points refer back here. So, where does an instruction about order really belong? - Glennan 11/14/08

6.16.0.9.2

Two instructions in previous version now collapsed into one. That's why the "clarinets (2)" example appears here with no obvious justification. Should these be broken out for clarity? If not, move this particular example under 6.16.0.9.3, with no other change needed. - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.10 Solo voices

[Same as 6.16.1.10 in full draft]

6.16.0.10.1 Reads like a closed list, but these don't exist in RDA anymore. What impact will an open list have on consistency in access point construction? (Again, I know those instructions come later in this chapter, but I believe they draw on these instructions for terminology.) - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.13 Indeterminate medium of performance

Recommend changing "such works" in 1st sentence of instruction to make things clearer. Revised sentence should read: "If, however, two or more works of indeterminate medium of performance by the same composer have the same title, record the number of parts or voices." - Glennan 11/10/08

6.16.0.13.3

[a) and b) in full draft as part of 6.16.1.13]

6.16.0.14 More than one particular instrument, ensemble, or voice

[similar to full draft 6.16.1.3]

6.16.0.14.1

Consider changing "...more than one part for a particular instrument..." to "...more than one particular instrument..." Use of "part" here may suggest the score format to some users of the code. - Glennan 11/10/08